Bankruptcy’s tie to homeownership

Over 67,000 personal bankruptcies were filed in California during 2017. This is down 73% from the peak of 253,000 bankruptcies filed in 2010. Choosing bankruptcy has limited benefits for individuals. One of these benefits is putting off foreclosure, as bankruptcy proceedings extend the foreclosure process by several months.

The number of personal bankruptcy filings has decreased each year since the end of the 2008 recession, returning to the average levels seen during the 1990s and early 2000s.

Personal bankruptcies decreased in 2017 due to a stagnating economic recovery. However, expect bankruptcies to rise marginally in 2018, fueled by rising mortgage rates and decreasing home prices. Many individuals waiting for solvency will get frustrated waiting and choose to throw in the towel, as is normal at the tail end of a recovery.

Updated 03/07/2018. Original copy released 01/04/2010.

Chart update 03/07/18

2017

2016

2015

Total CA Bankruptcies

67,497

71,322

79,663

The number of personal (nonbusiness) bankruptcy filings has decreased each year since the end of the 2008 recession. At the end of 2014, personal bankruptcy levels had fallen below the average levels seen during the 1990s and early 2000s.

California counties with the highest number of personal bankruptcy filings in 2017 were:

Los Angeles, with 16,000;

San Bernardino and Riverside, with 11,000 total;

San Diego, with 8,000; and

Orange, with 5,000.

The majority if these personal bankruptcy filings were through Chapter 7.

Two forms of bankruptcy

Two separate bankruptcy procedures exist, both governed by federal law.

Chapter 7 bankruptcy requires the insolvent homeowner in bankruptcy to repay their debt from whatever assets they possess, unless those assets are lower than state-allowed levels of assets and income. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, a home without equity is counted among these assets, and foreclosed upon.

Chapter 13 bankruptcy, on the other hand, requires the homeowner to repay their delinquent debts over a longer period of time than contracted for, after deducting reasonable living expenses.

The Chapter 13 repayment plan can include the homesteaded sale of the owner’s home, if the home has any equity in the home. Bankruptcy law no longer permits a homeowner’s mortgage to be reduced by a bankruptcy court (a cramdown, or principal reduction). However, Chapter 7 bankruptcy voids any deficiency obligations on recourse mortgage refinancing, just as it voids all unsecured debt with a value exceeding the amount of the homeowner’s nonexempt assets.

In addition to putting an immediate stop to lender collection efforts, the process of filing bankruptcy allows a homeowner to pay delinquent mortgage payments over a three-to-five year period. Troubled homeowners often choose to file Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in order to discharge their non-mortgage (unsecured) personal debts, and then use the newly freed funds to make future payments on their mortgages.

The homestead exemption

Bankruptcy laws do enforce California homesteads, which range from $75,000 for single homeowners without dependents to $175,000 for the aged or disabled. For positive equity homeowners, this exemption acts as an incentive to file bankruptcy in order to avoid unsecured debts and free up cash by making it available under the homestead.

On the other hand, the homestead exemption has no effect on the priority or payment of an owner’s mortgage. The bankruptcy process adversely affects lenders who have obtained involuntary liens (judgment liens) against the homeowner’s title.

Bankruptcy and foreclosure

The most important aspect of bankruptcy, from the point of view of mortgage lenders, is the “automatic stay” provision. This provision of bankruptcy law also delivers the most direct and immediate results for troubled homeowners. Any owner who files bankruptcy immediately places an automatic stay on all collection efforts, including foreclosure sales.

Lenders prefer to quickly move to a foreclosure sale, take title to the property or what proceeds they can and cut their losses, and are thus hamstrung by the automatic stay provision. They are forced to wait until a bankruptcy court allows them to proceed. The stay provision increases the lender’s costs of dealing with a homeowner who does not maintain their mortgage payments while in bankruptcy.

On average, filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy extends the foreclosure process from six months to a year. Chapter 13 delays the foreclosure sale even longer, often drawing it out to a year and a half. A homeowner who files bankruptcy without the ability to make payments on their mortgage merely extends the time before the eventual foreclosure sale. For the lender, the bankruptcy process increases the risk the home will be damaged or otherwise devalued before the sale takes place, increasing the lender’s eventual loss.

Lenders thus have a vested interest in government regulations that make it difficult for homeowners to obtain relief on their mortgages in bankruptcy, and they intend to keep their hard fought gain of a cramdown-free bankruptcy law intact. Lenders don’t want the threat of a bankruptcy judge endowed with the power to reset the loan balance at exactly the amount the security for the loan is worth (which, of course, is all the lender can expect to get from foreclosure anyway).

When bankruptcy is unavoidable, lenders want to get out of bankruptcy court as quickly as possible. Often they can be persuaded to agree to a short sale in order to hasten the process and cut their losses. Bankruptcy can thus be an effective way for homeowners to force the lender’s hand.

Costs and benefits of bankruptcy

So does filing bankruptcy, and thereby discharging unsecured debt and putting off a potential foreclosure sale, actually help homeowners pay their mortgages, or do the other costs of bankruptcy cancel out the benefits? Evidence is mixed, but homeowners and their attorneys certainly seem to believe that bankruptcy can be beneficial. Troubled homeowners already make up the majority of those who file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy (studies in other states found that over 80% of filers were paying for homes with a loan to value ratio (LTV) over 90%).

Of the total number of homeowners who file bankruptcy, only about 33% successfully kept their homes. It is certain that bankruptcy does, at least on occasion, have a positive effect for those desperate homeowners who turn to it as a last resort, and it is also sure that bankruptcy will almost always have a negative effect for lenders.

Equally important, homeowners who file for bankruptcy will find later that their past bankruptcy interferes with their future ability to get mortgage financing.

One immediate result of the 2007 mortgage crisis and the accompanying recession, along with its loss of jobs, has been an unparalleled rise in the number of foreclosures in California. Another less dramatic issue, though still significant, is the corresponding rise in personal and corporate bankruptcies. For homeowners currently contemplating the prospect of foreclosure, a bankruptcy petition may appear to be a valid alternative of last-resort. However, bankruptcies (as they are now managed, with cramdowns available to everyone but homeowners) do very little in the long term to avert foreclosure on homes that have no equity to preserve—in other words, California’s homes.To desperate homeowners, bankruptcy is more often a useful way to buy time and gain influence over lenders. Current and future owners, regardless of their risk of defaulting and entering foreclosure, should be aware of the influence that bankruptcy exerts on lenders under current real estate market conditions.

Try putting yourself into the shoes of a homeowner contemplating foreclosure and considering whether he can avoid his mortgage loans by entering bankruptcy. You must consider that household debt comes in two forms: secured debt and unsecured debt. In bankruptcy, secured debt, such as a mortgage loan, allows the lender to repossess the security in lieu of payment (in this case, by foreclosure on the home). Unsecured debt, such as credit card debt, has no such collateral, and can be avoided in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, but not Chapter 13.

Two forms of bankruptcy

Two separate bankruptcy procedures exist, both governed by federal law. Chapter 7 Bankruptcy requires the insolvent homeowner in bankruptcy to repay his debt from whatever assets he possesses, unless those assets are lower than state-allowed levels of assets and income. In Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, a home without equity will be counted among these assets, and foreclosed upon. Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, on the other hand, requires the homeowner to repay his delinquent debts over a longer period of time than contracted for, after deducting reasonable living expenses.

The Chapter 13 repayment plan may include the homesteaded sale of the owner’s home, if the home has any equity (such “real owner” situations remain rare in California). Bankruptcy law no longer permits a homeowner’s mortgage to be reduced by a bankruptcy court (a cramdown). However, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy does void any deficiency obligations on recourse mortgage refinancing, just as it voids all unsecured debt whose value exceeds the amount of the homeowner’s nonexempt assets.

In addition to putting an immediate stop to lender collection efforts, the process of filing bankruptcy allows a homeowner to pay delinquent mortgage payments over a three-to-five year period. Troubled homeowners often choose to file Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in order to discharge their non-mortgage (unsecured) personal debts, and then use the newly freed funds to make future payments on their mortgages.

Bankruptcy laws do enforce California homesteads, which range from $75,000 for single homeowners without dependents to $175,000 for the aged or disabled. For those homeowners with equity in their homes, this exemption acts as an incentive to file bankruptcy in order to avoid unsecured debts and free up cash by making it available under the homestead.

On the other hand, the homestead exemption has no effect on the priority or payment of an owner’s mortgage. The bankruptcy process does adversely affect lenders who have obtained involuntary liens (judgment liens) against the homeowner’s title.

The most important aspect of bankruptcy, from the point of view of mortgage lenders, is the “automatic stay” provision. This provision of bankruptcy law also delivers the most direct and immediate results for troubled homeowners. Any owner who files bankruptcy immediately places an automatic stay on all collection efforts, including foreclosure sales.

Lenders prefer to quickly move to a foreclosure sale, take title to the property or what proceeds they can and cut their losses, and are thus hamstrung by the automatic stay provision. They are forced to wait until a bankruptcy court allows them to proceed. The stay provision increases the lender’s costs of dealing with a homeowner who does not maintain his mortgage payments while in bankruptcy.

On average, filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy extends the foreclosure process from six months to a year. Chapter 13 delays the foreclosure sale even longer, often drawing it out to a year and a half. A homeowner who files bankruptcy without the ability to make payments on his mortgage from current income merely extends the time before the eventual foreclosure sale. For the lender, the bankruptcy process increases the risk the home will be damaged or otherwise devalued before the sale takes place, increasing the lender’s eventual loss.

Lenders thus have a vested interest in government regulations that make it difficult for homeowners to obtain relief on their mortgages in bankruptcy, and they intend to keep their hard fought gain of a cramdown-free bankruptcy law intact. They do not want the competition presented by a bankruptcy judge endowed with the power to reset the loan balance at exactly the amount the security for the loan is worth (which, of course, is all the lender can expect to get from foreclosure anyway).

When bankruptcy is unavoidable, lenders want to get out of bankruptcy court as quickly as possible. Often they can be persuaded to agree to a short pay on a sale arranged by the homeowner in order to hasten the process and cut their losses. Bankruptcy can thus be an effective way for homeowners to force the lender’s hand, even if bankruptcy courts lack the essential cramdown authority.

So does filing bankruptcy, and thereby discharging unsecured debt and putting off a potential foreclosure sale, actually help homeowners pay their mortgages, or do the other costs of bankruptcy cancel out the benefits? Evidence is mixed, but homeowners and their attorneys certainly seem to believe that bankruptcy can be beneficial. Troubled homeowners already make up the majority of those who file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy (studies in other states found that over 80% of filers were paying for homes with a loan to value ratio (LTV) over 90%).

Of the total number of homeowners who file bankruptcy, only about 33% successfully kept their homes. It is certain that bankruptcy does, at least on occasion, have a positive effect for those desperate homeowners who turn to it as a last resort, and it is also sure that bankruptcy will almost always have a negative effect for lenders.

Equally important, homeowners who file for bankruptcy will find later that their past bankruptcy interferes with their future ability to get an FHA-insured home loan, since they will be barred from such loans for a two year period (during which time the owner will be a creditworthy tenant for some landlord, if he has a job).
For a more comprehensive look at personal bankruptcy’s role in retaining or losing a home to foreclosure, see Residential Housing and Personal Bankruptcy, from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve.

Related Posts

2 Comments

Mike O
on August 30, 2017 at 10:23 pm

“Over the past few decades, Prop 13 has accomplished this — and more — at the expense of new homeowners and renters.
Some of the negative effects spread by Prop 13 include:
• reduced sales volume, as current homeowners are incentivized to stay in their current home to keep their low tax rate;
• * new homebuyers — typically young families with less wealth than their more established neighbors — pay higher tax rates than their neighbors, who benefit from the same government services their property taxes support.”

*New homebuyers may be paying higher property taxes than their neighbors, but they too are protected from spiraling out control property tax increases. This seems to be a poor argument.

“Of the total number of homeowners who file bankruptcy, only about 33% successfully kept their homes. It is certain that bankruptcy does, at least on occasion, have a positive effect” One out od three keep their homes! That’s not “On Occasion”, it’s pretty good odds! Get a grip!

Featured Comment

Zestimates are great conversation starters with sellers and buyers. Zillow has done more for our bottom line than NAR ever has or will. Don’t fight the current of the river, learn to run with it. Disruption is inevitable in any industry that is fragmented or inefficient. Granted, it does feel like armchair experts and platforms are plentiful in real estate these days, but when the tide rolls out we will see the value proposition of the truest professionals in this industry shine once again.